Pay humans to engage in ads, not LinkedIn

Re:Pay humans to engage in ads, not LinkedIn by izzygottlieb on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @10:37AM (#48295076)

Hot take, if you pay platforms like LinkedIn and X for your ads, they will turn a blind eye on the $63B a year ad fraud. Because they will lose billions. If you pay the "humans" directly there's no "conflict of interest". Companies get human attention, and humans get money for their time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pay humans to engage in ads, not LinkedIn by PaulHoule on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @10:38AM (#48295104)

Might not be quality attention though.

Could revolutionize HN which is currently flooded with people who desperately want attention for things that don't deserve it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pay humans to engage in ads, not LinkedIn by izzygottlieb on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @10:43AM (#48295162)

If you verify every human, to not be a bot, and to be reputable (e.g. employee at Google) vs. trusting LinkedIn to show your ads to those same people to want to target. The math is in the formers favor. Quality cannot be much more degraded than the current Pay-per-click solution of today, specially with LLMs crawling the web like never before.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pay humans to engage in ads, not LinkedIn by izzygottlieb on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @10:44AM (#48295176)

If a human proved attention (via comprehension check, LLM detection, feedback etc.), compared to the alternative of just paying $5-$15 on LinkedIn for just a CLICK! The choice is a no-brainer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pay humans to engage in ads, not LinkedIn by apothegm on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @11:47AM (#48296041)

And how exactly are you proposing to verify that users are human?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pay humans to engage in ads, not LinkedIn by yisrael_g on Wednesday May 27, 2026 @01:38PM (#48297665)

Identity verification, and biometric verification (during each engagement), are the main two. For the full list: https://www.nexertise.com/security

[ Parent | on HN ]